Search

Background No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. Methods We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. Results Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is promising as an efficacious treatment for food allergy. Other food allergy treatments are also under development. However, adverse allergic events (AE) during treatment, as well as during oral food challenges (OFC) are common and reporting is not standardized. OBJECTIVE: A more nuanced grading scale is needed to create a comprehensive and universal system to categorize AEs and their severity for food allergy clinical trials. METHODS: Starting with the 2012 Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale and the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Grading System, we developed the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions, Version 3.0, in collaboration with industry partners with expert opinion. RESULTS: The revised CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions has five levels of increasing severity, ranging from generalized urticaria, localized angioedema, rhinitis, and abdominal pain (Grade 1) to death (Grade 5). Systemic reactions are further categorized within each grade by relevant organ system. Mild, single-system reactions are differentiated from mild, multi-system reactions. Lower respiratory symptoms are graded based on response to therapy; those that are refractory to standard treatment (e.g., requiring >3 doses of IM epinephrine, continuous IV epinephrine infusion, continuous albuterol nebulization) and respiratory compromise requiring mechanical ventilation are classified as Grade 4, life-threatening reactions. CONCLUSION: Universal and consistent use of the revised CoFAR Grading Scale beyond the CoFAR centers would allow for better data aggregation and safety comparisons in clinical trials for food allergy.

Food allergy is an important medical problem with increasing prevalence throughout the world. Different approaches of food immunotherapy are being investigated including oral, epicutaneous and sublingual routes. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy involves placement of glycerinated allergen under the tongue daily to achieve allergen-specific desensitization. SLIT has been studied in the treatment of hazelnut, peach, apple, milk and peanut allergies with substantial focus on the treatment of peanut allergy. Phase II studies have shown SLIT for treatment of peanut allergy increases the tolerated dose of peanut by a substantial margin with fewer and less severe side effects than other modalities. This review discusses the mechanisms of SLIT, early studies of its use in food allergy and larger randomized controlled trials for treatment of peanut allergy. Future directions using the mechanisms involved in SLIT include oral mucosal immunotherapy for peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy, for which there are no approved treatment options, affects patients who are at risk for unpredictable and occasionally life-threatening allergic reactions.METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we screened participants 4 to 55 years of age with peanut allergy for allergic dose-limiting symptoms at a challenge dose of 100 mg or less of peanut protein (approximately one third of a peanut kernel) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Participants with an allergic response were randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive AR101 (a peanut-derived investigational biologic oral immunotherapy drug) or placebo in an escalating-dose program. Participants who completed the regimen (i.e., received 300 mg per day of the maintenance regimen for approximately 24 weeks) underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at trial exit. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants 4 to 17 years of age who could ingest a challenge dose of 600 mg or more, without dose-limiting symptoms.RESULTS: Of the 551 participants who received AR101 or placebo, 496 were 4 to 17 years of age; of these, 250 of 372 participants (67.2%) who received active treatment, as compared with 5 of 124 participants (4.0%) who received placebo, were able to ingest a dose of 600 mg or more of peanut protein, without dose-limiting symptoms, at the exit food challenge (difference, 63.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 53.0 to 73.3; PCONCLUSIONS: In this phase 3 trial of oral immunotherapy in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut, treatment with AR101 resulted in higher doses of peanut protein that could be ingested without dose-limiting symptoms and in lower symptom severity during peanut exposure at the exit food challenge than placebo. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; PALISADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02635776 .).